Original Research

Effects of Respite Music on Repeated Upper-body Resistance Exercise

Performance
JONATHAN T. LEHMAN*#, BROOKLYN G. WHITMIRE*#, REBECCA R. ROGERS‡, TYLER D.
WILLIAMS‡, and CHRISTOPHER G. BALLMANN‡
Department of Kinesiology, Samford University, Birmingham, AL, USA
*Denotes undergraduate student author, #Denotes authors contributed equally, ‡Denotes professional author

ABSTRACT
International Journal of Exercise Science 15(7): 79-87, 2022. The purpose of this study was to investigate
the effects of self-selected respite music on upper-body resistance exercise performance. In a crossover,
counterbalanced study design, resistance-trained males (n = 10) participated in two bench press trials each with a
different condition: 1) No music (NM), 2) Listening to respite music (RM; i.e. during rest periods). Following a
warm-up, participants completed 3 sets × repetitions to failure (RTF) at 75% of 1-RM separated by 2 minutes of rest.
During the 2-minute rest, participants either listened to NM or RM until the next subsequent set. A linear position
transducer was used to measure mean barbell velocity during the first 3 repetitions and averaged for analysis. Rate
of perceived exertion (RPE) and motivation were obtained after each set. Results indicate that mean velocity was
higher during set 2 (p = 0.009; d = 1.34) and set 3 (p = 0.048; d = 0.95) while listening to RM versus NM. Furthermore,
motivation was significantly higher following set 2 (p = 0.005; d = 1.15) and set 3 (p < 0.001; d = 1.79) while listening
to RM compared to NM. No changes in RTF or RPE were noted between conditions (p > 0.05). These findings
indicate listening to music during recovery may enhance subsequent explosive resistance performance and suggest
that listening to music in between bouts of maximal effort could be an effective tool for optimizing performance
during competition or training.

KEYWORDS: Bench press, velocity, motivation

INTRODUCTION

A multitude of evidence exists showing that listening to music enhances exercise performance
(1, 28). This has been shown in multiple exercise types including endurance, sprint, and
resistance-based exercise (6, 11, 19, 22). The benefits of listening to music may be mediated
through various mechanisms including psychological (i.e. motivation, mood), physiological (i.e.
oxygen uptake, autonomic control), and psychophysiological (i.e. rate of perceived exertion,
arousal) (1). While music and responses to exercise have been widely described, the optimal
timing of the application of music is still unclear, especially in resistance exercise.
 Int J Exerc Sci 15(7): 79-87, 2022

Listening to music during resistance exercise has been studied while music is being played
before and during exercise. Overall, music has shown positive benefits towards resistance
exercise performance although some conflicting evidence exists (6, 7, 9). Ballmann et al. showed
that listening to preferred music during resistance exercise increased barbell velocity and
repetitions to failure (RTF) during a single set of bench press (6). Supporting this, Bartolomei et
al. reported improved bench press strength-endurance while listening to self-selected music (7).
Still, others have shown that while listening to music may not enhance repetition volume, it does
improve explosive jumping and acute power performance (9). Disparities between findings are
not fully known but may be due to nuances in the duration of how long music is played for or
whether or not music was played continuously throughout the entirety of each trial. With
regards to timing, multiple investigations have shown improvements in bench press
performance when music is played before exercise (2, 3). Listening to self-selected music solely
before bench press RTF has been shown to increase repetition volume and velocity of barbell
movement although RPE was unaffected (3). Furthermore, preferred warm-up music has been
shown to increase RTF during repeated bench press exercise but did not alter RPE (2). Thus,
music not played during exercise may have less potent effects on modifying RPE and across
many of the previously mentioned studies, music-induced increases in motivation appear to be
crucial in allowing for optimal effort and performance (2, 3, 6). Anecdotally, music is played at
competitions and sporting events before and/or during breaks of gameplay. However, many
athletes and competitors are not permitted to listen to music during competition thus making it
difficult to practically apply previous findings of improved performance while listening to
music during exercise. While there is evidence suggesting benefits of listening to music before
resistance exercise, virtually no research exists determining if listening to music solely during
rest periods is advantageous during resistance exercise.

Respite music, or music during rest/recovery, has recently been studied in high-intensity
exercise but benefits remain equivocal (16, 18). Jones et al. showed that listening to respite music
had little effect on affective responses during a high-intensity interval training session although
performance was not measured (18). Hutchinson et al. reported that listening to stimulative
respite music between repeated Wingate anaerobic tests resulted in increased arousal and peak
power development (16). Thus, it is possible that listening to music during rest periods could
serve as an effective ergogenic tool to allow for better subsequent exercise performance.
However, no studies to date have determined the efficacy of listening to respite music on
repeated resistance exercise performance. The purpose of this study was to investigate the
effects of self-selected respite music on upper-body resistance exercise (i.e. velocity, repetition
volume), specifically bench press exercise. We hypothesized that respite music would result in
better maintenance of barbell velocity and repetition volume during bench press exercise.
Furthermore, we predicted that RPE would be lower and motivation higher with respite music.

METHODS

Participants
An a priori power analysis using statistical software (G*power V 3.1.9.4) was completed to
determine an adequate sample size. Previous work from our lab measuring bench press velocity

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

80
 Int J Exerc Sci 15(7): 79-87, 2022

between preferred and non-preferred music using similar loads showed increases in barbell
velocity with an estimated effect size of d = 1.6 (6). To obtain minimal sample size number, the
following parameters were used: test = t-test (matched pairs), d = 1.6, α = 0.05, 1-β = 0.8. This
revealed a minimum sample size of 6 for adequate power. In agreement with previous literature
(2, 3, 6), 12 resistance-trained males were recruited to participate, and 2 participants were
excluded via screening and due to noncompliance to pre-test procedures. Descriptive
characteristics of participants (n = 10) are shown in [Table 1]. Resistance-trained was defined
according to the American College of Sports Medicine as accumulating a minimum of 2-3 days
of resistance exercise each week (26). Screening for the safety of exercise was completed using a
physical activity readiness questionnaire (PARQ) (26). Individuals were excluded if they
reported an upper-extremity injury within the last 6 months that disrupted training,
cardiovascular disease, musculoskeletal disease, metabolic disease, or other health problems (13,
30). Before each exercise session, participants were asked to refrain from caffeine, nicotine, and
alcohol 12 hours prior and vigorous upper body exercise 24 hours prior (26). Informed consent
was obtained from each participant before data collection and all experimental procedures were
approved by the Samford University Institutional Review Board (IRB). This research was carried
out in accordance with the ethical standards of the International Journal of Exercise Science (23).

Table 1. Descriptive Characteristics (n = 10)

Characteristic Mean ± SD
Age (yrs) 20.7 ± 1.1
Height (cm) 180.8 ± 5.8
Body Mass (kg) 81.8 ± 13.2
1RM (kg) 101.5 ± 18.4
Relative strength [(1RM (kg)/ BM (kg)] 1.3 ± 0.1
Training Experience (yrs) 4.2 ± 2.7
1RM = 1 Repetition Maximum; BM = Body mass

Protocol
To determine the appropriate load for subsequent experimental trials, participants first
completed a separate 1RM testing trial for bench press exercise to determine maximal strength
as previously described by our lab (3, 6, 17, 30). Briefly, participants began by completing a
warm-up consisting of 5 repetitions at 50% and 3 repetitions at 70% of their initial self-reported
bench press 1RM separated by 2 minutes of rest. After the warm-up, participants began to
complete true 1RM bench press attempts with the barbell weight progressively increased by 2.5
– 20.0 kg for each attempt. This was completed until the participant could not complete the
concentric phase of the lift. Each attempt was separated by a 3-minute rest period within a
maximum of four attempts. To familiarize participants with lifting explosively, participants
lifted a standard 20-kg Olympic bar as fast and as explosively as possible for three repetitions,
and form was corrected as needed (3, 30).

In a randomized and counterbalanced, crossover study design, participants completed 2

experimental visits following the 1-RM trial with a differing condition: 1) no music (NM), 2)
respite music (RM; i.e. during rest/recovery). To begin, participants completed a standardized
bench press warm-up which included 5 repetitions at 40% 1-RM followed by 3 repetitions at

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

81
 Int J Exerc Sci 15(7): 79-87, 2022

60% 1-RM. Each warm-up set was separated by 1 minute of rest. Following an additional 3
minute rest, participants then completed 3 sets × repetitions to failure (RTF) at 75% 1RM as
explosively as possible (30). There were 2 minutes of passive rest between each set of RTF.
During these periods, RPE and motivation were immediately measured and then participants
either listened to NM or RM. Rate of perceived exertion (RPE) was determined using a 1–10
scale where 1 was “not tired at all” to 10 “so tired cannot continue” (5, 29). Motivation to exercise
was then measured using a visual analog scale as previously described by our lab (2, 6, 21).
Briefly, participants were presented with a 100 mm line and asked to mark how motivated they
felt to exercise where 0 was “zero motivation” and 100 was “extremely motivated”. For the RM
condition, participants chose any song of their liking, as long as it had a tempo of ≥ 120 BPM
(mean tempo = 150.3 bpm ± 10.7) and listened to it through headphones at a standardized
volume (3, 19). The chosen song was played on loop and all music was stopped immediately
before subsequent RTF. For the NM condition, the participant sat quietly. To measure velocity
during each set of RTF, a linear position transducer (GymAware; Kinetitech Performance
Technology, ACT, Australia) was attached to the barbell. This device has been previously
validated for measuring during resistance exercise and has shown excellent test-retest reliability
in our lab: [ICC] = 0.932 (13, 30). The first 3 repetitions for each set were averaged together to
use for barbell velocity analysis (2, 6).

Statistical Analysis
All data were analyzed using Jamovi software (Version 0.9; Sydney, Australia). Statistical
analysis was conducted using a 2 × 3 [Condition × Set] repeated measures ANOVA with a
Bonferroni-Holm post-hoc test as warranted. Estimates of effect size for main effects were
calculated using eta squared (η2) and interpreted as: 0.01—small; 0.06—medium; ≥ 0.14—large
(12, 15). If warranted, Cohen’s d effect sizes (d) were calculated between conditions and
interpreted as: 0.2—small; 0.5—moderate; 0.8—large (12, 15). Significance was set at p ≤ 0.05 a
priori. All data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD).

RESULTS
Repetitions to failure (reps; RTF), mean velocity (m· s-1), and mean power (watts) are shown in
[Figure 1]. For RTF, there was a significant main effect for set (p < 0.001; η2 = 0.667) but not for
condition (p = 0.999; η2 < 0.001). No significant interaction between set × condition was observed
(p = 0.250; η2 = 0.009). In particular, RTF were lower in both set 2 (p < 0.001; d = 1.85) and set 3 (p
< 0.001; d = 2.55) compared to set 1. Additionally, RTF were lower for set 3 compared to set 2 (p
= 0.004; d = 1.27). For mean velocity, there was a significant main effect for both set (p < 0.001; η2
= 0.560) and condition (p < 0.001; η2 = 0.096). There was also a significant interaction for set ×
condition (p = 0.028; η2 = 0.024). Regardless of condition, mean velocity was lower during set 2
(p < 0.001; d = 2.31) and set 3 (p < 0.001; d = 2.94) compared to set 1. Furthermore, mean velocity
during set 3 was also lower than set 2 (p < 0.001; d = 1.63). Mean velocity was lower in the NM
condition compared to RM during set 2 (p = 0.009; d = 1.34) and set 3 (p = 0.048; d = 0.95). For
mean power, there was a significant main effect for both set (p < 0.001; η2 = 0.180) and condition
(p < 0.047; η2 = 0.102). There was also a significant interaction for set × condition (p = 0.048; η2 =
0.021). Regardless of condition, mean power was lower during set 2 (p = 0.005; d = 1.11) and set
3 (p = 0.039; d = 2.18) compared to set 1. Also, mean power during set 3 was also lower than set
2 (p < 0.001; d = 0.98). Mean power was lower in the NM condition compared to RM during set
2 (p = 0.045; d = 0.89) and set 3 (p = 0.041; d = 0.75).

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

82
 Int J Exerc Sci 15(7): 79-87, 2022

14 0.6

Mean Velocity (m· s-1)

12 *
_______
0.5
*
_______ † *#
_______
10
0.4 †
8 *#
Reps

_______ NM NM
0.3
6
RM 0.2 RM
4
2 0.1

0 0
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 1 Set 2 Set 3

500
*
_______
*#
Mean Power (watts)

_______
400 †
†
300
NM
200 RM

100

0
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3
Figure 1. Top Left: Repetitions (reps), Right: mean velocity (m· s-1)
between no music (NM; grey) and respite music
(RM; red) condition over 3 × sets of repetitions to failure bench press exercise. Data are presented as mean ± SD. *
indicates significantly different from set 1 (p ≤ 0.05). # indicates significantly different from set 2 (p ≤ 0.05). †
indicates significantly different from RM (p ≤ 0.05).

Rate of perceived exertion (1-10 scale; RPE) and motivation (mm) are shown in [Figure 2]. For
RPE, there was a significant main effect for set (p < 0.001; η2 = 0.476) but not for condition (p =
0.129; η2 = 0.012). No significant interaction between set × condition was observed (p = 0.322; η2
= 0.009). Irrespective of condition, RPE was higher in both set 2 (p = 0.035; d = 0.51) and set 3 (p
< 0.001; d = 2.17) compared to set 1. Additionally, RPE was higher for set 3 compared to set 2 (p
= 0.002; d = 1.23). For motivation, there was a significant main effect for condition (p < 0.001; η2
= 0.206) but not set (p = 0.969; η2 = 0.001). There was a significant interaction for set × condition
(p = 0.002; η2 = 0.080). Overall, motivation was lower during the NM condition compared to RM
(p < 0.001; d = 0.72). More specifically, motivation was significantly lower during set 2 (p = 0.005;
d = 1.15) and set 3 (p < 0.001; d = 1.79) with NM compared to RM.

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

83
 Int J Exerc Sci 15(7): 79-87, 2022

10 *#
_______ 90
_______
* 80

Motivation (mm)
8 70 †
†
RPE (1-10)

60
6 50
NM NM
40
4 RM RM
30
2 20
10
0 0
Set 1 Set 2 Set 3 Set 1 Set 2 Set 3
Figure 2. Left: Rate of perceived exertion (RPE; 1-10 scale), Right: Motivation (mm) between no music (NM; grey)
and respite music (RM; red) condition over 3 × sets of repetitions to failure bench press exercise. Data are presented
as mean ± SD. * indicates significantly different from set 1 (p ≤ 0.05). # indicates significantly different from set 2 (p
≤ 0.05). † indicates significantly different from RM (p ≤ 0.05).

DISCUSSION
Previous studies have shown that listening to music prior to and during resistance exercise
imparts performance-enhancing effects on barbell velocity and repetition volume (3, 6).
Furthermore, respite music has been shown to increase measures of arousal and improve
repeated sprint ability (16). However, it is unclear whether respite music influences repeated
resistance exercise performance. Present findings suggest that listening to RM attenuates
velocity loss over multiple bench press sets compared to NM while repetition volume was
similar between conditions. RPE increased following each set regardless of condition. However,
motivation to exercise was higher during sets followed by listening to RM versus NM. While
mechanisms for ergogenic benefits are not fully understood from these data alone, there are
important practical applications of these findings for enhancing inter-set recovery for resistance
exercise trainees and competitors.

Currently, mean velocity was higher in sets followed by listening to RM compared to NM. This
supports previous work which observed improved peak power during Wingate anaerobic
sprint tests with RM (16). Furthermore, it also bolsters previous findings of increased bench
press velocity while listening to music before and during exercise (3, 6). Likely, these effects are
unpinned by increased motivation with RM currently observed. Increases in motivation while
listening to music during resistance exercise have been reported by multiple studies (2, 3, 6).
Higher motivation with music may lead to greater effort allowing for individuals to lift with
higher velocities. Indeed, higher motivation from music has been shown to improve the
performance of repeated agility movements (8). Although speculative, increases in velocity may
also be due to physiological factors. Yamamoto et al. showed increased catecholamine responses
after listening to fast tempo music before exercise (31). Anticipatory catecholamine increases
have been linked to improved muscular force and performance (14). It is plausible that listening
to RM resulted in higher catecholamines levels thus allowing participants to lift with greater
force and velocity. Furthermore, psychological factors, such as motivation, may in part mediate
physiological determinants of performance and the anticipatory response to exercise. However,
it is unknown how RM influences physiological mediators of performance and future study will
be needed to confirm previously mentioned mechanism or others.

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

84
 Int J Exerc Sci 15(7): 79-87, 2022

Presently, repetition volume decreased from set to set in both conditions and was largely
unaffected by RM. This is in contrast to previous investigations showing improved bench press
repetition volume with listening to music (2, 3, 6). For example, a recent study showed increased
RTF over two sets of bench press after listening to preferred warm-up music (2). Disparities
between findings may be due to differences in the timing of which the listening of music was
initiated. Previous investigations reporting improvements in repetition volume had participants
begin listening to music in a non-fatigued state (2, 3). Whereas currently, RM was not played
until after participants had already completed one set of RTF and may have been in a semi-
fatigued state. Lopes-Silva et al. showed little to no ergogenic benefit during cycling if music is
applied in a fatigued state (20). Therefore, RM may have less potent effects on repetition volume
given the fatigue state in which music is applied. RPE was also unaffected by RM which
supports other reports when music was played solely before a warm-up (1, 2, 19). Music has
been repeatedly shown to cause dissociation and serve as a distraction from the discomfort of
exercise (1, 22, 24, 28). However, the effectiveness of music in reducing RPE has been suggested
to be reliant on the music being played during the actual bout of exercise. Since RM was not
played during the bouts of bench press, it may have not instilled dissociation thus not affecting
RPE. Collectively, listening RM may not be an effective strategy for improving repetition volume
or increasing levels of dissociation.

While current data show novel ergogenic benefits of listening to respite music during resistance
exercise, there were several limitations. First, the sample size was relatively small and
homogenous. Because of this, it is unknown if these results will fully translate to other
populations including female, aged, or differentially trained populations which have been
previously suggested to have varying responses to music (4, 25). Future studies should include
larger and more diverse samples in attempts to reinforce findings. Also, only a single load (75%
1RM) and rest period duration was used which was chosen in attempts to maximize translation
to individuals training for hypertrophy and muscular power (17, 26). But it is unknown if
performance-enhancing effects of RM will transfer to lower/higher loads or shorter/longer rest
periods during maximal resistance exercise performance. Lastly, many intrinsic characteristics
outside of tempo and volume were not controlled for including genre and lyrical content. As
some of these characteristics have been shown to differentially affect the efficacy of music during
resistance exercise (10, 27), more investigation is needed to decipher which specific
characteristics of RM are influential on performance.

In conclusion, RM improves explosive ability during upper-body resistance exercise but does
not improve repetition volume or RPE. RM also increased motivation to exercise. Collectively,
this study suggests that listening to music during rest periods may enhance inter-set recovery
and allow for athletes and competitors to maintain explosiveness and motivation to exercise
over multiple sets of resistance exercises. Future investigations are needed to determine the ideal
load, rest period, and form of exercise to allow for maximum efficacy of respite music.
Additionally, translation of these findings to game-play or practice situations in various sports
needs to be examined.

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

85
 Int J Exerc Sci 15(7): 79-87, 2022

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There was no funding associated with this study. We would like to thank Dr. John Petrella for
his aid with this project.

REFERENCES

1. Ballmann CG. The influence of music preference on exercise responses and performance: A review. J Funct
Morphol Kinesiol 6(2)2021.
2. Ballmann CG, Cook GD, Hester ZT, Kopec TJ, Williams TD, Rogers RR. Effects of preferred and non-preferred
warm-up music on resistance exercise performance. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology 6(1): 3,
2021.
3. Ballmann CG, Favre ML, Phillips MT, Rogers RR, Pederson JA, Williams TD. Effect of pre-exercise music on
bench press power, velocity, and repetition volume. Percept Mot Skills 128(3): 1183-1196, 2021.
4. Ballmann CG, Maynard DJ, Lafoon ZN, Marshall MR, Williams TD, Rogers RR. Effects of listening to preferred
versus non-preferred music on repeated wingate anaerobic test performance. Sports 7(8): 185, 2019.
5. Ballmann CG, Maze SB, Wells AC, Marshall MM, Rogers RR. Effects of short-term rhodiola rosea (golden root
extract) supplementation on anaerobic exercise performance. J Sports Sci 37(9): 998-1003, 2019.
6. Ballmann CG, McCullum MJ, Rogers RR, Marshall MM, Williams TD. Effects of preferred vs. Nonpreferred music
on resistance exercise performance. Journal of strength and conditioning research 2018.
7. Bartolomei S, Di Michele R, Merni F. Effects of self-selected music on maximal bench press strength and strength
endurance. Percept Mot Skills 120(3): 714-721, 2015.
8. Belkhir Y, Rekik G, Chtourou H, Souissi N. Listening to neutral or self-selected motivational music during warm-
up to improve short-term maximal performance in soccer players: Effect of time of day. Physiology & behavior 204:
168-173, 2019.
9. Biagini MS, Brown LE, Coburn JW, Judelson DA, Statler TA, Bottaro M, Tran TT, Longo NA. Effects of self-
selected music on strength, explosiveness, and mood. J Strength Cond Res 26(7): 1934-1938, 2012.
10. Carmichael KE, Marshall DN, Roche BM, Olson RL. Effects of music on arousal, affect, and mood following
moderate-intensity cycling. In Proceedings of the International Journal of Exercise Science: Conference Proceedings. 2018.
p. 91.
11. Chtourou H, Jarraya M, Aloui A, Hammouda O, Souissi N. The effects of music during warm-up on anaerobic
performances of young sprinters. Science & Sports 27(6): e85-e88, 2012.
12. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences 2nd edn. In: Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale; 1988.
13. Degrange T, Jackson W, Williams T, Rogers RR, Marshall M, Ballmann C. Acute caffeine ingestion increases
velocity and power in upper and lower body free-weight resistance exercises. International Journal of Exercise
Science 12(2): 1280-1289, 2019.
14. French DN, Kraemer WJ, Volek JS, Spiering BA, Judelson DA, Hoffman JR, Maresh CM. Anticipatory responses
of catecholamines on muscle force production. Journal of Applied Physiology 102(1): 94-102, 2007.
15. Fritz CO, Morris PE, Richler JJ. Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. J Exp Psychol
Gen 141(1): 2-18, 2012.
16. Hutchinson JC, O'Neil BJ. Effects of respite music during recovery between bouts of intense exercise. Sport,
Exercise, and Performance Psychology 9(1): 102, 2020.
17. Jeffreys I, Moody J. Strength and conditioning for sports performance. Routledge; 2021.
18. Jones L, Stork MJ, Oliver LS. Affective responses to high-intensity interval training with continuous and respite
music. Journal of Sports Sciences 38(24): 2803-2810, 2020.

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

86
 Int J Exerc Sci 15(7): 79-87, 2022

19. Karow MC, Rogers RR, Pederson JA, Williams TD, Marshall MR, Ballmann CG. Effects of preferred and
nonpreferred warm-up music on exercise performance. Perceptual and motor skills 127(5): 912-924, 2020.
20. Lopes-Silva JP, Lima-Silva AE, Bertuzzi R, Silva-Cavalcante MD. Influence of music on performance and
psychophysiological responses during moderate-intensity exercise preceded by fatigue. Physiology & behavior 139:
274-280, 2015.
21. Meglic CE, Orman CM, Rogers RR, Williams TD, Ballmann CG. Influence of warm-up music preference on
anaerobic exercise performance in division i ncaa female athletes. J Funct Morphol Kinesiol 6(3)2021.
22. Nakamura PM, Pereira G, Papini CB, Nakamura FY, Kokubun E. Effects of preferred and nonpreferred music
on continuous cycling exercise performance. Percept Mot Skills 110(1): 257-264, 2010.
23. Navalta JW, Stone WJ, Lyons TS. Ethical issues relating to scientific discovery in exercise science. Int J Exerc Sci
12(1): 1-8, 2019.
24. Potteiger JA, Schroeder JM, Goff KL. Influence of music on ratings of perceived exertion during 20 minutes of
moderate intensity exercise. Perceptual and motor skills 91(3): 848-854, 2000.
25. Rhoads KJ, Sosa SR, Rogers RR, Kopec TJ, Ballmann CG. Sex differences in response to listening to self-selected
music during repeated high-intensity sprint exercise. Sexes 2(1): 60-68, 2021.
26. Riebe D, Ehrman JK, Liguori G, Magal M, Medicine ACoS. Acsm's guidelines for exercise testing and prescription.
Wolters Kluwer; 2018.
27. Silva N, Rizardi FG, Fujita RA, Villalba MM, Gomes MM. Preferred music genre benefits during strength tests:
Increased maximal strength and strength-endurance and reduced perceived exertion. Perceptual and motor skills
128(1): 324-337, 2021.
28. Terry PC, Karageorghis CI, Curran ML, Martin OV, Parsons-Smith RL. Effects of music in exercise and sport: A
meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin 146(2): 91, 2020.
29. Williams TD, Langley HN, Roberson CC, Rogers RR, Ballmann CG. Effects of short-term golden root extract
(rhodiola rosea) supplementation on resistance exercise performance. Int J Environ Res Public Health 18(13)2021.
30. Williams TD, Martin MP, Mintz JA, Rogers RR, Ballmann CG. Effect of acute beetroot juice supplementation on
bench press power, velocity, and repetition volume. J Strength Cond Res 34(4): 924-928, 2020.
31. Yamamoto T, Ohkuwa T, Itoh H, Kitoh M, Terasawa J, Tsuda T, Kitagawa S, Sato Y. Effects of pre-exercise
listening to slow and fast rhythm music on supramaximal cycle performance and selected metabolic variables. Arch
Physiol Biochem 111(3): 211-214, 2003.

International Journal of Exercise Science http://www.intjexersci.com

87